Eaton circuit breakers

Captorofsin1

Member
Occupation
Electrical contractor
Hello everyone. I have been interchanging Eaton BR style circuit breakers with Murray, Westinghouse, and T&B panels for years. Never had a problem.

I was reading online about the CL style and the BR style breakers.

I emailed Eaton and they told me that BR style breakers are only UL listed for BR panels and that CL is for the "no longer made panels" above.

Visually, I don't see any real difference between the BR and the CL style breaker.

More than one place online that I've read that folks state that the BR style breakers do just fine in the "No longer made" panels.

Any input would be awesome 😀.
 

norcal

Senior Member
The CL is more expensive then BR, but installing a Eaton BR in any panel other then a BR, or Challenger, is not code compliant as they have not been classified for use in competitive makes.
 

Captorofsin1

Member
Occupation
Electrical contractor
The CL is more expensive then BR, but installing a Eaton BR in any panel other then a BR, or Challenger, is not code compliant as they have not been classified for use in competitive makes.

Looks like I would also be pretty hard pressed to find CL. I wonder what the huge difference in them is physically.
 

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
Looks like I would also be pretty hard pressed to find CL. I wonder what the huge difference in them is physically.
The CL are readily available in my area. I can't speak to the physical difference, but I do know that Eaton paid to have them tested and listed for the different mfg brand panels. So the difference may only be that they "paid" to have them tested/listed.
 

Captorofsin1

Member
Occupation
Electrical contractor
Since it's always been my understanding (I stand corrected) that Eaton BR style breakers would go in Old Westinghouse, t&b, and Murray panels, I've always installed them in those panels without a second thought.

Something tells me that if anything went "sideways"(probably won't), it would be many years down the road .

The darn things fit and they look exactly like CL.
 

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
Since it's always been my understanding (I stand corrected) that Eaton BR style breakers would go in Old Westinghouse, t&b, and Murray panels, I've always installed them in those panels without a second thought.

Something tells me that if anything went "sideways"(probably won't), it would be many years down the road .

The darn things fit and they look exactly like CL.
Eaton/Cutler-Hammer BR did work for some Westinghouse as they took over the company. Murray was always Siemens.
 

norcal

Senior Member
Eaton/Cutler-Hammer BR did work for some Westinghouse as they took over the company. Murray was always Siemens.
Murray, became Crouse-Hinds, then sold to Siemens, who brought back the Murray brand for a few years before discontinuing the brand.

Bryant was the original BR, they were part of Westinghouse, then who then got rid of the Bryant name & the Bryant wiring devices, the Westinghouse name survived until after Eaton too over & folded it in their Cutler-Hammer subsidiary until rebranding everything as Eaton.

This also should include Westinghouse's purchase of Challenger, having their breakers listed for Challenger products, & keeping the Challenger loadcenters for both brands.
 

Captorofsin1

Member
Occupation
Electrical contractor
Rhetorical question. Would it make too much sense to just have one style breaker (either BR or CL)? If there were not markings on either one of them you wouldn't be able to tell one from the other. It looks to me like the BR style is a rebranded CL or vice versa.

Like the same way as Suzuki equator is just a rebranded Nissan frontier.
 

Captorofsin1

Member
Occupation
Electrical contractor
I don't think anything bad would happen if you actually put a BR style breaker in a Old Murray or Westinghouse panel.
 

Little Bill

Moderator
Staff member
Location
Tennessee NEC:2017
Occupation
Semi-Retired Electrician
I don't think anything bad would happen if you actually put a BR style breaker in a Old Murray or Westinghouse panel.
What I have run into with interchanging brands is, although they look like they fit, and they go in fine, the contacts on the breaker don't make good contact with the bus stabs. After a while you will find burnt spots on the stabs and have to move the breaker to another stab.
I don't understand your hesitancy to just get the correct breaker. Even if the brand is discontinued, you can find listed replacements.
 

LarryFine

Master Electrician Electric Contractor Richmond VA
Location
Henrico County, VA
Occupation
Electrical Contractor
The requirement is for an approved breaker type, not necessarily brand.

BR started as BRyant. Many older panels actually listed other brands' breakers.
For example, this Arrow-Hart panel label lists Murray, Bryant, Westinghouse, and ITE:

1649221663292.png
 
Rhetorical question. Would it make too much sense to just have one style breaker (either BR or CL)? If there were not markings on either one of them you wouldn't be able to tell one from the other. It looks to me like the BR style is a rebranded CL or vice versa.

Like the same way as Suzuki equator is just a rebranded Nissan frontier.
I would LOVE IT if the industry could standardize 1" plug on breakers. IF I Was a dictator, that would be the first directive I would make actually!

Heres a funny relevant picture of the wall of the electrical room at a job of mine:
 

Attachments

  • bryant.jpg
    bryant.jpg
    238.7 KB · Views: 78

norcal

Senior Member
Perhaps it would be best to either make breakers non interchangeable with makes not listed or classified for use with competitive makes or require that they go through the proper listing in order not to be required to redesign their product, the "if it fits it's OK" does not work, the system is it exists, is clear as mud. Many years ago, if a ITE breaker fit that is what was installed, reading this forum & others cured me of such a practice.
 

kwired

Electron manager
Location
NE Nebraska
I don't think anything bad would happen if you actually put a BR style breaker in a Old Murray or Westinghouse panel.
They are listed for Westinghouse panels as it is the same product line just eventually was acquired by Eaton
Rhetorical question. Would it make too much sense to just have one style breaker (either BR or CL)? If there were not markings on either one of them you wouldn't be able to tell one from the other. It looks to me like the BR style is a rebranded CL or vice versa.

Like the same way as Suzuki equator is just a rebranded Nissan frontier.
The CL is their "classified" breaker that has been tested and listed to use in other manufacturers equipment. Most of what it is made of may very well be the same components as the BR. There could be differences particularly in how the bus connection components are spec'd that may not be obvious just looking at it.
 

jaggedben

Senior Member
Location
Northern California
Occupation
Solar and Energy Storage Installer
The requirement is for an approved breaker type, not necessarily brand.

BR started as BRyant. Many older panels actually listed other brands' breakers.
For example, this Arrow-Hart panel label lists Murray, Bryant, Westinghouse, and ITE:

1649221663292.png
This.
Never even look at the brand name. Either on the panel label or the breaker. Always look at the type.
 

Jraef

Moderator, OTD
Staff member
Location
San Francisco Bay Area, CA, USA
Occupation
Electrical Engineer
THERE WAS A TIME up until the late 1980s when manufacturers could list other brands of “interchangeable” plug-in breakers that could be used in their panels. The PANEL label has to simply list those compatible breakers. So that Arrow-Hart / Murray panel is a prime example of that labeling. Arrow-Hart bought Murray around 1970, then were themselves bought by Crouse Hinds in 1979, so a panel showing Arrow-Hart / Murray was from within that era when interchangeable breakers were allowed.

But that CHANGED after some spectacular field failures (fires) and subsequent lawsuits in the early to mid 80s. The issue was, there were SLIGHT differences in how the different bus and stabs were designed, along with a flurry of industry consolidation to where older panels were no longer being supported by new owners. So UL changed the listing rules in (I think) 1988 or 89 to require that breakers and panels be TESTED AND LISTED TOGETHER. This effectively put an end to interchangeability as it was known then.

But right about that same time, GTE had decided to get into the electrical equipment business and bought Zinsco, which turned into a debacle. So they also bought Sylvania-Clark, and in doing so gained the ability to make a new line of “interchangeable” breakers to get out from under the Zinsco fiasco. They had the Zinsco facility make a new panel system copying the bus from ITE, Bryant and Murray, but had the Sylvania plant make new interchangeable breakers so as to disassociate the breakers from Zinsco. To try to gain market acceptance, those mid-80s Sylvania panels listed virtually every other interchangeable breaker under the sun on their labels, and they marketed the breakers likewise. They were the last to do so.

But when UL changed just a few years later, it threatened to put GTE out of the business they had just heavily invested in. So apparently GTE threatened to sue UL for restriction of trade. The settlement was that UL created the “Classified Breaker” program wherein a BREAKER MANUFACTURER could test their breakers in competitors panels, so that the breakers could be RETROFITTED into existing panels of another brand. But to attain this, GTE /Sylvania had to buy and test virtually every competitive panel on the market at that time, getting “Classification” of their breakers in all of them. That was a huge expense that they hoped would pay off. But it was not good enough to overcome their Zinsco problem, and later bad decision to also buy the rights to FPE from Reliance, so GTE pulled the plug. Not willing to let it all go, managers of the Sylvania plants bought that division and created Challenger. They struggled too (I think from under the weight of still being associated with Zinsco and FPE), to where they went belly up in the 90s. Eaton saw the value of the Classified Breaker product line, so they bought ONLY that product and production facility, which today remains as their “CL” product line. You will note that the CL line is not sold with any panels, it is JUST a line of breakers that can legally be RETROFITTED into existing panels, most notably all most all of the former “interchangeable” panels from now defunct brand names.

So here is how it works now. Under NEC 110.3(b), everything you install for inspection must the listed for the intended use and installed per manufacturer’s instructions. So if you are installing a NEW PANEL, that panel is only listed with its own breakers. Nobody that makes panels is going to pay megabucks to test and list competitive brands of breakers, why would they? But AFTER the fact, if you are needing to RETROFIT a breaker into an EXISTING panel (that was ostensibly installed inspected and approved by virtue of all of the breakers being the same brand), that retrofit breaker CAN be a “Classified” breaker, of which the major supplier is Eaton CL (by way of Challenger / GTE Sylvania). There are other minor players in the Classified breaker business, such as Connecticut Electric / UBI as well. In general, Classified breakers are more expensive than the original breakers for a panel, because the sales volume for them is extremely low in comparison.

What you CANNOT do however is plug a BR breaker into a Siemens panel, or vice-versa, or plug a Square D HOM breaker into ANYTHING other than a HOM panel, or any breaker that is NOT cross-listed**. All of those other combos violate 110.3(b). The EXCEPTION is if it is a pre-change panel, like in the Arrow Hart example, and the panel label is still there and specifically states that the panel can except other breakers.

**Cross-listed is different. Siemens bought ITE in the 80s. ITE was brand-labeling their breakers to Murray/Crouse Hinds already at the time. Siemens later BOUGHT Murray and has not substantially changed the old ITE breakers. So the current Siemens QP breakers are cross-listed to be used in Murray and Crouse Hinds/Murray panels. Murray no longer exists as a separate brand name under Siemens as of I think 2022. At one time if you ran into an inspector who didn’t know this, you could get a letter from Siemens explaining it. I don’t know if that’s still the case.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be anything more than a general timeline, I no longer remember all of the exact dates. I worked for Siemens for a time and learned most of this from internal documentation that was not available to the public. But as much as I want to think that was just “a little while ago”, it’s approaching 20 years ago now, so I have killed off some of those brain cells.
 
THERE WAS A TIME up until the late 1980s when manufacturers could list other brands of “interchangeable” plug-in breakers that could be used in their panels. The PANEL label has to simply list those compatible breakers. So that Arrow-Hart / Murray panel is a prime example of that wrong. Arrow-Hart bought Murray around 1970, then were themselves bought by Crouse Hinds in 1979, so a panel showing Arrow-Hart Murray was from within that era when interchangeable breakers were allowed.

But that CHANGED after some spectacular field failures (fires) and subsequent lawsuits in the early to mid 80s. The issue was, there were SLIGHT differences in how the different bus and stabs were designed, along with a flurry of industry consolidation to where older panels were no longer being supported by new owners. So UL changed the listing rules in (I think) 1988 or 89 to require that breakers and panels be TESTED AND LISTED TOGETHER. This effectively put an end to interchangeability as it was known then.

But right about that same time, GTE had decided to get into the electrical equipment business and bought Zinsco, which turned into a debacle. So they also bought Sylvania-Clark, and in doing so gained the ability to make a new line of “interchangeable” breakers to get out from under the Zinsco fiasco. They had the Zinsco facility make a new panel system copying the bus from ITE, Bryant and Murray, but had the Sylvania plant make new interchangeable breakers so as to disassociate the breakers from Zinsco. To try to gain market acceptance, those mid-80s Sylvania panels listed virtually every other interchangeable breaker under the sun on their labels, and they marketed the breakers likewise. They were the last to do so.

But when UL changed just a few years later, it threatened to put GTE out of the business they had just heavily invested in. So apparently GTE threatened to sue UL for restriction of trade. The settlement was that UL created the “Classified Breaker” program wherein a BREAKER MANUFACTURER could test their breakers in competitors panels, so that the breakers could be RETROFITTED into existing panels of another brand. But to attain this, GTE /Sylvania had to buy and test virtually every competitive panel on the market at that time, getting “Classification” of their breakers in all of them. That was a huge expense that they hoped would pay off. But it was not good enough to overcome their Zinsco problem, and later bad devision to also buy the rights to FPE from Reliance, so GTE pulled the plug. Not willing to let it all go, managers of the Sylvania plants bought that division and created Challenger. They struggled too (I think from under the weight of still being associated with Zinsco and FPE), to where they went belly up in the 90s. Eaton saw the value of the Classified Breaker product line, so they bought ONLY that product and production facility, which today remains as their “CL” product line. You will note that the CL line is not sold with any panels, it is JUST a line of breakers that can legally be RETROFITTED into existing panels, most notably all most all of the former “interchangeable” panels from now defunct brand names.

So here is how it works now. Under NEC 110.3(b), everything you install for inspection must the listed for the intended use and installed per manufacturer’s instructions. So if you are installing a NEW PANEL, that panel is only listed with its own breakers. Nobody that makes panels is going to pay megabucks to test and list competitive brands of breakers, why would they? But AFTER the fact, if you are needing to RETROFIT a breaker into an EXISTING panel (that was ostensibly installed inspected and approved by virtue of all of the breakers being the same brand), that retrofit breaker CAN be a “Classified” breaker, of which the major supplier is Eaton CL (by way of Challenger / GTE Sylvania). There are other minor players in the Classified breaker business, such as Connecticut Electric / UBI as well. In general, Classified breakers are more expensive than the original breakers for a panel, because the sales volume for them is extremely low in comparison.

What you CANNOT do however is plug a BR breaker into a Siemens panel, or vice-versa, or plug a Square D HOM breaker into ANYTHING other than a HOM panel, or any breaker that is NOT cross-listed**. All of those other combos violate 110.3(b).

**Cross-listed is different. Siemens bought ITE in the 80s. ITE was brand-labeling their breakers to Murray/Crouse Hinds already at the time. Siemens later BOUGHT Murray and has not substantially changed the old ITE breakers. So the current Siemens QP breakers are cross-listed to be used in Murray and Crouse Hinds/Murray panels. Murray no longer exists as a separate brand name under Siemens as of I think 2022. At one time if you ran into an inspector who didn’t know this, you could get a letter from Siemens explaining it. I don’t know if that’s still the case.

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be anything more than a general timeline, I no longer remember all of the exact dates. I worked for Siemens for a time and learned most of this from internal documentation that was not available to the public. But as much as I want to think that was just “a little while ago”, it’s approaching 20 years ago now, so I have killed off some of those brain cells.
I'm waiting for a Netflix documentary series on this! 🎥 🍿
 
Top